The consensus of historians on the
assassination of Grand Vizier Sokullu
Mehmed Pasha on October 11, 1579 AD (or 20 Sha'ban 987 AH in
the Islamic reckoning) is fairly well-known in our field. The Ottoman
Sultan Murad
III, alienated from the vizier who had served his father and
grandfather so long and ably by his mother Narbanu
Sultan and Venetian-born wife Safiye
Sultan, took steps to reduce the vizier's influence on
government. The vizier's allies were sent to faraway positions or
assassinated. Ultimately, a mentally-unstable dervish talked his way
into the vizier's office and stabbed him. This kind of intrigue was
fairly common in the Ottoman Empire, especially during the period
known as the Sultanate
of Women.

However, some recent discoveries by Miskatonic
University researchers of documents thought lost forever during the
civil unrest that wracked Constantinople when
the Janissaries were suppressed has shed new light on the
circumstances of the vizier's assassination and an incident that took
place in 1571.

These documents paint a far more sinister
picture of the vizier. They include accusations of dealings with
agents of Safavid
Persia, with whom the vizier had counseled peace as opposed to
the usual border wars, and even black magic. The documents accuse the
vizier of, under the influence of an agent of Persian Shah
Tahmasp I, acquiring a book of black magic from an Armenian
merchant who had visited the long-vacant shrine of a corrupted Sufi
order that had been destroyed by Turkish nomads not long before. The
use of this book resulted in an incident in Constantinople that
killed dozens of Ottoman soldiers, destroyed one war galley and
forced the scuttling of a second, and caused significant damage to
the Bayezit
II mosque.

These accusations against Sokullu are not new,
but have been long dismissed as the slanders from his political
enemies. However, the mosque was damaged somehow, necessitating
repairs by the famed Ottoman architect Mimar
Sinan in 1573 and 1574. Furthermore, it is often said that
converts make the best zealots. Safiye Sultan was a Catholic before
she became a Muslim, while the most recent evidence suggests Narbanu
was an Orthodox Greek from Corfu before her conversion. If Sokullu
was involved in the dark arts, or was widely believed so, this could
have provoked the ire of the Imperial women. They would not wish one
so tainted to continue virtually ruling the Ottoman Empire in place
of their son and husband. And the dervish orders might be willing to
provide an assassin to dispose of the vizier, especially given his
(tangential) connection to a Sufi order that had become warped by
dark forces.

Of course, this is all just speculation. The
documents describe how the soldiers killed in the incident were
buried in a mass grave outside Constantinople that was given special
attention by Muslim imams, Orthodox Christian priests, and even a
Jewish rabbi, while the materials used by Sokullu in the incident
were confiscated, burned, and abandoned in Persia. Should this mass
grave or the dumping site be found, it would lend credence to the
incident described in the documents.

So just why was the
Grand Vizier assassinated, and is the author's theory about dark
powers manifesting in Constantinople actually true? Read "The
Beast of the Bosporus" on
Amazon.com to
find out!

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Today I went down to Atlanta for day two of the AnachroCon, which bills itself as "the place in the Southern United States for Steampunk, History,
Alternate History, Science, Music, Classic Sci-Fi Literature and the
most amazing costuming you’ve ever seen!" I didn't read that tag line particularly carefully, so I stuck out like a sore thumb in my grey sweatshirt, jeans and sneakers against a crowd of steampunk enthusiasts. It seemed as if a section of 18th century London's well-to-do had time-travelled to a Marriott. Men sporting waist coats and top hats milled with women crammed into corsets and hoop skirts while a highlander in a kilt played a harp and sang.

I didn't see anything in the program about actual alternate history, though I expect the "alternate history" cross-pollinated with science fiction or fantasy which seems to sell better was in evidence somewhere. Actually, if you consider Steampunk merely a type of alternate history, and many do, that seemed to be a unifying theme of the convention. And more power to the people who like that genre or aesthetic or whatever you want to call Steampunk, but I have never been able to enjoy it the way I sink my teeth into more pure "historical what-ifs."

I suppose I did not stay long enough to get a really good feel for the convention. I did, however, get the chance to meet Matthew Quinn, a long time member of alternatehistory.com and author of the short-story Coil Gun. He's a great guy who gave me some pointers on both this blog and the Alternate History Podcast, the first episode of which will be out soon. So check out his stuff; he will be guest-blogging here and I may reciprocate on his blog which is also in the sidebar under the new "favorites" blog roll.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Who were the Hephthalites?
You might know them better as White Huns, distant cousins of the
tribe that wreaked havoc on the Roman Empire in the fifth century.
These Huns went south rather than east, invading Persia and India to
carve out a sizable land empire which they ruled from the headwaters
of the Indus River Valley. Rather than annex Persia outright, the
Hephthalites forced the Sassanids to pay tribute, and for two
decades, from their initial invasion in 483 to the beginning of the
sixth century, Persia was a pawn in the hands of the Hephthalite
king.

So why did these White
Huns not conquer Persia in reality? The honest answer is we don't
know. Information on the Hephthalites is sketchy at best, and so most
of this post will be simple speculation. It seems the decision not to
conquer Persia early on when they first invaded was a wise one, as it
gave them time to establish themselves in India. Had they simply
conquered Persia in 485, they likely would have been subsumed by
Persia similar to how many of the foreign tribes which invaded and
ruled China became Chinese. Looking forward a few decades presents an
interesting point of divergence, but before I get that, I should
probably briefly lay out the history of this time period.

In 483 the Hephthalites
invaded Persia and went on a two year rampage. The Sassanid Emperor
at the time was Peroz I, who was killed on the battlefield in 484.
His army died with him. In the ensuing power vacuum, his brother
Balash seized the throne. Balash paid the White Huns enormous tribute
to leave. His four year rule was marred by a power struggled with the
sons of Peroz. Zareh's rebellion was quashed with the aid of Armenia,
but Kavadh I would prove much more difficult. Kavadh had married a
daughter of the Hephthalite King, led a Hephthalite army into Persia
with his father-in-law's blessing. With the army outside the gates of
the capital, Balash was blinded and deposed by a group of priests and
nobles who opened the gates for Emperor Kavadh.

Once established, Kavadh looked for
a way to check the power of his magnates, those people who had
overthrown his predecessor. He decided to support a religious group
known as the Mazdaki sect, which advocated rich men divide their
wives and wealth with the poor. The magnates saw through his game and
imprisoned him in a tower in Susa. His brother, Djamasp, became
emperor and ruled briefly from 496-8. But Kavadh was able to escape
the tower and returned in 498 with 30,000 troops from the Hephthalite
King. His brother abdicated and Kavadh began his second reign as
Emperor of Persia. In that year he had to pay tribute to the
Hephthalites, probably in part for their assistance in placing him on
the throne. Kavadh could not pay and sought subsidies from Rome,
which not so long ago had been subsidized by Persia. Emperor
Anastasius refused, hoping the two eastern empires would turn on
themselves.

In our timeline, Kavadh managed to
forestall the payment of tribute by persuading his father-in-law to
support a war against wealthy Rome. But what Anastasius was right and
the two eastern empires did turn on themselves? It seems reasonable
to think that Kavadh's familial relationship to the Hephthalite king
was important in keeping the White Huns from riding into Persia to
collect the tribute themselves. But what if Kavadh was not in power?
What if when his magnates overthrew him in 496, they chose to execute
him?

Executing the son-in-law of Persia's
most powerful neighbor, the king to which they paid regular tribute,
would not have been a smart idea. The political misstep might have
been taken by the Hephthalites as a pretext for invasion in 497. I
highly doubt Djamasp, who seemed to have been a puppet of court
interests, could have held off the Hephthalite army. By 500 might the
White Huns have been in a position to annex Persia? I don't see why
not. Now they do not have a puppet to place on the throne, so the
Hephthalite king might have seen it as convenient to conquer Persia,
organize it as a province in his empire, and perhaps give it to one
of his sons to rule.

Organizing such a large empire will be
a significant challenge for the Hephthalites. At this time the
capital of the Empire was Baktra (Balkh) in modern northern
Afghanistan. This is fairly centrally located, though the western end
of the Sassanid Empire, where the capital of Ctesiphon is located is
quite far away. A system of regional capitals might be adopted. In
our timeline, Sakala (Sialkot) in the Indus River Valley became the
capital of the Hephthalite Empire. In this timeline in might serve as
a regional administrative center for the Indian province. Old Damghan
of Parthian fame could serve a similar purpose for Persia.

I am skeptical that this empire would
have any sort of longevity. If the king were to give his sons each a
province, the empire could quickly disintegrate at his death. Or
perhaps after each bloody succession crisis the empire would be
reunited. It's really impossible to conclusively decide one way or
the other, though it should be noted that large land empires,
especially this early in history, never lasted for long. Then in
about a century or so, the now sedentary Hephthalites will have to
deal with the Göktürks marauding
down from the steppes. Perhaps that would signal the end of the
empire, with Persians and Indians rebelling to form their own states.

But
let us look beyond Central Asia. How does this change effect the rest
of the world? The absence of a Roman-Sassanid war in the early sixth
century means the Roman (Byzantine, if you prefer) Empire begins the
sixth century in a much stronger position. I see no reason to make
significant changes until Justinian's reconquest of the west. In this
timeline the great general Belisarius would not have had any eastern
wars to cut his teeth on, unless of course Anastasius, Justin, or
Justinian decided to attack the Hephthalites. But if there was a long
period of peace, it is possible Belisarius might not have been the
general he was in our timeline. Then again, how can we say that this
economically stronger Roman empire would have had a tougher time
retaking the west. On the contrary, with more money and no western
distractions, I think the Italy and North Africa could not just be
retaken but held onto. And perhaps Spain also, which Rome already
controlled the coast of, and which had a natural border against the
Germanic Kingdoms with the Pyrenees.

Removing
the Sassanids also has a significant effect on the balance of power
in Arabia and east Africa. The
Persians controlled both sides of the Persian gulf directly and had
effectively vassalized the tribes in Yemen and Oman. They used those
tribes in proxy wars against the Kingdom of Aksum, Rome's Ethiopian
allies who had controlled the lucrative Red Sea trade for the
preceding three decades. In our timeline, the sixth century saw the
Sassanids wrest that trade route from the Aksumites, who were also
suffering due to the effects of climate change, overfarming, and
state collapse brought about by a number of factors contingent on the
loss of control of the Red Sea. If Persia's influence is removed from
Arabia then Aksum has a chance to take a breather and, perhaps,
regain its footing on the Arabian peninsula. This has huge
butterflies, the most notable being the shifting circumstances which
may impact the Arabic religious movements which Muhammad was a
product of.

I
have hardly scratched the surface with this POD, but I think this is
enough for now. Let me know in the comments what you think of my
ideas when it comes to the effects of White Huns in Persia.

Friday, February 15, 2013

The Alternate History Inquirer seeks to promote thoughtful discussion of "historical what-if" scenarios. The primary method will be periodical sketches of alternate scenarios, starting with a fixed POD and then moving forward in time to analyze the results of one small change in history. Hopefully members of the audience will engage with the blog, critiquing and speculating off of each post.

I am also interested in hosting podcasts on a regular basis with members of various alternate history communities to discuss not just specific scenarios but also general themes and tropes in the genre. I may also accept guest bloggers, if this blog ever gets to that level of success.